Interventional locoregional treatment and metabolic response: advantages of using PET/CT in the evaluation of response to treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Interventional oncology locoregional therapies are validated treatment modalities for primary and secondary tumors in liver, lung, kidney and bone. At this time, there is no accordance in the choice of imaging modality to assess treatment response. Morphological imaging and RECIST 1.1 criteria based on size variation are limited by several critical points. On the other hand the role of functional imaging, in particular by [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), in both staging and response evaluation of locoregional treatments remains unclear because of the heterogeneous nature of available data. The aim of this paper was to summarize the available literature illustrating the state of art of metabolic evaluation of response after locoregional therapies in the three major organs of interest: liver, lung and bone. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline database was searched for relevant original paper evaluating the role of [18F]-FDG PET in interventional oncology treatment published up to June 2017 excluding case reports. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Finally 41 studies papers evaluating the role of [18F]-FDG PET in both staging and in response evaluation of locoregional treatments focused on liver tumoral lesions (N.=29), on lung lesions (N.=10) and on bone lesions (N.=2) were considered for this review. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT appears to perform well in the assessment of response to interventional therapies compared to conventional imaging, not only in terms of response evaluation but also as a possible prognostic tool. Nevertheless further prospective, homogenous studies are required to confirm these data, in particular for lung and bone lesions.

Ga-68 DOTATOC PET, endoscopic ultrasonography, and multidetector CT in the diagnosis of duodenopancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a single-centre retrospective study.

PURPOSE: In this report, we compared endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), multidetector CT (MDCT), and Ga-68 DOTATOC PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). We report our experience with use of these methods in patients suspected to have duodenopancreatic primitive NET. METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients (mean age, 56; 21-80), who underwent both Ga-68 DOTATOC PET/CT and EUS between March 2007 and November 2008 were retrospectively included in the study (16 underwent MDCT). Suspicion of NET was confirmed by EUS-FNA and/or surgery. Operative characteristics of PET, EUS, and MDCT were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-three neuroendocrine lesions were diagnosed in 13/19 patients. EUS, PET, and MDCT correctly identified as affected 13/13 (100%), 12/13 (92%), and 10/11 (91%) patients, respectively. On a lesion basis, EUS, PET, and MDCT identified correctly as NETs 22/23 (96%), 20/23 (87%), and 13/18 (72%) lesions (P = 0.08 EUS vs. CT). Both on a patient and on a lesion basis, specificity was 67%, 83%, and 80% for EUS, PET, and MDCT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS, Ga-68 DOTATOC PET, and MDCT seem to have comparable accuracy in diagnosis of duodenopancreatic NET and their combination may allow an optimal preoperative diagnosis.